quorum call:

mr. tester: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i rise to speak on a bill that's going to be dealt with here at the bottom of the hour, senate bill 3525, the sportsmen's package. this is a landmark bill. it includes ideas from members of both parties tprapbd both khaeupl -- and from both chambers. it has over 50 national sports organizations that support this

bill ranging from the nature conservancy to the n.r.a. it has some 17 provisions that are included in this bill that will help expand access to public lands support additional habitat conservation and preserve the hunting and fishing rights that millions of americans cherish. there has been much discussion about this bill, and many people weighing in. the fact is this is a responsible bipartisan bill that will reduce the deficit by $5 million while expanding hunting and fishing opportunities for millions of americans. now, i appreciate the perspective of the ranking member of the budget committee on the issue of whether to raise a point of order or not. i know he has to defend the budget act. however, the reality is this, this bill reduces the debt by $5 million over ten years. those aren't my figures. those are the figures of the

congressional budget office. and unfortunately a vote to sustain senator sessions' point of order is a vote to kill this important bipartisan legislation. now we've already had plenty of partisanship already here today on the senate floor. i think it's time to do something in a bipartisan fashion and do something that is good for some 90 million americans who consider themselves hunters and anglers. i urge my colleagues to waive the budget point of order and then approve this important bill. with that, mr. president i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would be raising -- the presiding officer: a quorum call. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: i will be raising a point of order against this legislation. but i want to thank my colleague senator tester for his hard work and the efforts of a lot of people to put this legislation together and i hope my colleagues will listen as to why i think it is important that this bill, with a lot of good points in it which i favor

strongly needs to be sent back and fixed. the reason is this: the bill violates the budget control act that we passed august a year ago that's been certified by senator conrad, the chairman of the budget committee and his staff. it plainly as often is the problem, spends more than the budget control act allows to be spent. chairman conrad, as i said, has agreed to that. number two now this is the fourth bill brought before this senate by the majority leader in the last 15 months that violates the budget. the fourth time. this is a time in which our country has never faced a more serious systemic budget crisis. we're on an unsustainable course

and we know that. one of the things we need to do is figure out a way to constrain ourselves, and the budget control act was a step in that direction. to raise the debt limit august a year ago we spent borrowed all the money we could borrow. and to raise the debt ceiling the debt limit the budget control act was passed. it limited spending. that was all part of deal to raise the debt ceiling. these violations of the budget control act lower respect of the senate by the american people. it hurts our nation because it impacts our debt situation and our spending. and it cannot be justified. it should not happen. we can avoid this. now, i disagree with senator tester on this point.

of course sustaining a budget point of order will not kill this bill unless in some manner of pique senator reid were to say i'm not going to pass it. if you don't tpas like i said it ought to be pass, if you waive the budget and do it like i said; i don't think senator reid will do that. what will happen is it will go back to committee and senator reid would review it and see what we can do to fix it, which will be really easy compared to some of the difficult problems we have around here. the need would simply be to find $14 million a year. i've suggested a number of ways already, but those haven't been suggested. so we're talking about, if you think about it this way we're talking about finding savings somewhere in this monumental government of $14 million when,

mr. chairman we plan to spend $370,000 million this year. by alabama standards that's a lot of money. another problem the bill is subject to the house blue slip. under the congressional budget office analysis and the president's own office of management and budget in the white house the duck stamp tax -- duck stamp is a tax. it simply is a tax. people can say it's not a tax. it's a tax. they have defined it as a tax. we don't have the ability to redefine the meaning of words around here. and it's a tax and a tax can't originate in the senate. so the house as it's presently written, is likely to object and will object to this, i'm certain. another easily fixed problem in

the bill is this: the environment and public works committee brought the legislation up. the question of whether the duck stamp tax should be set by law by congress or given to the member of the present staff to set at whatever level he wants was discussed. and senator boxer agreed with those who shared the view that we shouldn't be delegating the power to an unelected cabinet person to set taxes in the united states of america. you can set duck stamp under this bill at any level he wants to set it at. that's not good. this is constitutional. i really feel strongly about it. congress must never cede its power to tax to a single person not even accountable or any

other entity; u.n. or any other entity. the constitution gives congress the power to tax and only the congress the power to tax. that could easily be fixed. not a problem there. it's always been argued that the point of order is only technical. don't worry about this point of order. it's only technical because the new spending in it is paid for. how? by tax increases. so the budget control act drafted, as you know, 18, 15 months ago and the budget laws of this senate understand this argument. this is not a new argument. they knew that this kind of gimmick would come up under the budget control act and they expressly prohibited.

they understood it, and that's why they prohibited it. under the budget control act a spending limit is a spending limit. i kno -- i know senator reid seems to think that if he raises taxes he can spend more and he doesn't have to a tension to the budget control act -- attention to the budget control act that he signed and supported or voted for and the president signed and negotiated 15 months ago. he doesn't have to do that. because he's paid for it he thinks. by raising taxes. but the truth is that the budget control act doesn't deal with taxes. it deals with spending, and it prohibits more spending than the amount given to the budget -- than the amount above the e.p.w. allocations. and even my friend -- i note

senator tester and my friend senator warner earlier fine senators and they say there's no problem. okay there's no problem sessions. it reduces the deficit $5 million over ten years. you shouldn't worry. so you say okay, sessions ... why are you complaining? you're worrying about the deficit. it redices the deficit $5 million -- it reduces the deficit $5 million. c.b.o. says that. and that may be the case. i think it is the case. but what is the answer to that charge? the answer to it is simply this: this legislation as it's now written and can be changed raises taxes $145 million and spends $140 million. and they pat themselves on the back and say we pay down the debt $5 million. give me a break.

so -- but if the spending limit of the budget control act -- think about this, though. if the spending limit of the budget control act were complied with we'd not have a $5 million reduction in spending, we'd have $145 million reduction in deficit at least. we'd have $145 million deficit reduction instead of $5 million. so let's ask has anyone looked around to see if there's any spending that can be reduced to pay for this? the interior department spends $29 billion a year. can't find $14 billion? well the answer is, nobody has looked to save any money to pay for this bill. nobody really. well why not? because it asks the members of the house and the senate and the congress to choose, make

priority settings and that's hard. we don't want to do hard things. there's over $900 million in wetland programs and other things like that in the bill that advance duck causes and hunting and so forth. has anybody ever looked to see if that multiplicity of programs might be consolidated and maybe save $14 million there plus any other spending in this government could be utilized to keep within the spending limits and not violate it. you aboutbut the fact is the budget control act said we must choose. if you want to have a new program and one of your -- in one of our areas of the government fine and dandy but you have to do it within the limit of spending that we've agreed to. so this bill doesn't do that. under this rationale, you would have to assume that the needs of

this bill are so little that there's not a single other program in america not a single one that's less valuable. therefore, the only way you can proceed with this bill is to raise taxes raise revenue. and that's just sumly not correct. -- and that's just sumly not correct. we know better than that. so there is he no reason why these problems can't be fixed. slowing down, complying with the budget control act not delegating to an unelected cabinet member the four raise -- the power to raise taxes is not hard to deal with. so senator tester, thank you for your worth i work. i'm not sure the way this was done was something you

suggested. i believe we could work this out. i've made some suggestions. i'm open to a lost suggestions. but i would just say, i will continue to object to any bill brought before this congress that violates the solemn agreement we made 15 months ago. and this one does. senator conrad has made sure it has verified that. and if my colleagues will adhere to the limits of spending that we agreed to 15 months ago by supporting this budget point of order, this popular bill, with a lot of good values in it, will be quickly fixed and passed. there's just no other way to see it. and if the future, committees -- and senator reid perhaps will stop sending budget busters to

the floor of the united states senate. mr. president, i was going to make the budget point of order at this point but i see senator tester -- i don't know if he wanted to -- and let me again say how much i appreciate the hard work senator tester has put into this. he is a friend, and i know he's worked hard. and hate to cause him heartburn at this point in time, but i really would say i a have raised this budget point of order on other bills and it is not that i'm complaining particularly about his. his in fact will be a lot easier to fix than some others. mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. tester: yes, thank you. the presiding officer: the the senator from montana. mr. tester: thank you. i want to thank the ranking member of the budget committee for his comments. look folks, this is a bill about habitat. it is a bill about access. it is a bill about opportunity for people who enjoy our outdoors in this country.

the outdoor economy is some $600 billion, $600 billion a year. i've heard many times spoken on the floor if we're going to get the deficit and debt under control, we've got to grow our economy. this is about growing our economy. how? by allowing to have opportunity for hunters and fishermen for outdoor activists to go out there and utilize the great outdoors this country has to offer. montana and throughout this country. we're losing habitat every day. we have lost access to habitat for hunting and fishing and hiking. this bill will fix that. and i will go back to the point that senator sessions made. when i go back home, folks are talking to me about the debt. they're talking to me about the deficit. they're asking what we can do to fix it. and, quite frankly, this is one of the those things we can do to fix it. by increasing opportunities for our outdoorsmen and women in this country, we have the

opportunity to increase our economy in a very, very positive way. like i say, we can talk about the duck stamps. those dollars go in to be used for promoting opportunities in duck hunting. those moneys will not be going into funding the war in afghanistan. they're going to be money in basically goes out for a specific purpose. and, by the way the folks that utilize the duck stamp want this money bumped up. that's why we give the secretary its discretion. with that i yield back to the senator from alabama. the presiding officer: the clerk will report bill. the clerk: s. 2535 a bill to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting and fishing and shooting and and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: the pending amendment 2875 offered by the

senator from nevada, senator reid would cause the underlying legislation to exceed the authorizing committee's section 302-a allocations of new budget authority and outlays. therefore i raise a point of order against this measure pursuant to section 302-f of the congressional budget act of 1974. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: pursuant to section 904 of the budget control act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, i move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of this pending amendment and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. all postcloture time is expired. the question is other than the motion. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote vote:

vote:

vote:

riefer oh oishvote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 50, the nays are 44. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. the point of order is sustained and amendment 2875 falls.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the reid amendment 2878 be withdrawn, that the vote on passage of the bill be vitiated, the bill be returned to the calendar status quo. further, at a time to be determined by the majority leader it be in order for the majority leader to resume consideration of the bill. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i now move,

madam president, we proceed to calendar number 419 s. 3254. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to the consideration of calendar number 419 s. 3254, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military activities of the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: may we have order please. the majority leader. mr. reid: as i indicated this morning, we're trying to work our way through a number of issues. we thought we were going to be able to move toward the carcieri matter this evening but we're still negotiating this matter and so we're going to have to do that at some subsequent time. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. may we have order please. mr. sessions: madam president i appreciate the vote that we -- that was just concluded. i think what the vote says is that we want the bills brought to the floor to be in compliance with the budget control act that was passed 15 months ago. this bill even though it was not a lot of money violated that and the senators have volted not to waive the budget and spend the money anyway. they decided we should comply two the budget.

i have talked with senator tester and majority leader reid and assured them that the fundamentals of this bill is good i like what they have been trying to do, the sportsmen's act have been supportive of so many of the provisions in it. we had several little problems. first and foremost, it attempted to spend more than -- than interior-e.p.w. committee was entitled to spend. secondly, we have a blue slip problem with it and thirdly we've given the interior department secretary the power to raise taxes union lairl without a vote of congress and i think that's bad policy. all of those however compared to the many other provisions in the legislation are small and we should be able to work that out.

so i hope that we can and i will be working in that regard. but i do want to say to my colleagues this is the second bill that had a lot of support on both sides of the aisle that has failed because they've violated the budget control act agreement on spending. and some on the other side might think that they can simply say republicans are noes, they're obstructionists, they're killing bills just because they want to kill them and they don't like them and that's not correct. republicans want to deal with many of the issues before us, like veterans' jobs and sportsmen's issues and are supportive of it but we want it to be done according to the agreement that we reached on

spending limits of last year and that can be easily be done. we spend something like 370 billion dollars a year, 370 billion a year. we ought to be find $14 million in waste fraud duplication savings that can be utilized to pay for this new program. what the bill suggests by the way it's written is that we've looked at all the spending of the entire united states government and we can't find $14 million less valuable than what -- than to spend it on duck expansion. so i think that's not true. of course we can find waste fraud, and abuse right there. find other ways to consolidate programs to fund this and we've got to honor the agreement that we reached. because it looks to me like that we'll soon be heading to some

sort of late-night end-of-the-session monumental bill again. and it will be like we had 15 months ago when the debt ceiling was increased and limited -- and spending was limited and we promised that we'll raise the debt ceiling but we will limit spending growth, basically. and we voted on that. the majority voted for it, the president supported it, he signed it. it became law and here we are now 15 months later having had four bills brought to this floor that violated that spending limit. we've got to be care thankful the american people are not going to be very confident that if we reach some sort of other spending limit agreement to avoid a fiscal cliff that we won't just before the ink is dry

start violating it. after all it only takes 60 votes. so i think it's a very important issue. at ranking republican on the budget committee, when we make an agreement, i think we ought to adhere to it and this is why we had a difficulty with the bill. i enjoy working with senator tester. i've had good conversation with majority leader reid. hopefully something can be worked out to fix this problem. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be called off. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further

consideration of h.r. 6063 and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 606 an act to amend title 18 united states code with respect to child pour nothinggraphy and child exploitation offenses. the presiding officer: is there an objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection the committee is discharge and the senate will proceed. mr. levin: mr. president i ask unanimous consent now that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements related to the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i understand that s. 3637 introduced earlier today by senator reid -- that's senator reid of nevada -- is at

the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the tile for the firms. the clerk: s. 3637 a bill to temporarily extend the transaction account guarantee program and for other purposes. mr. levin: you now ask for its second reading and to be my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day. mr. levin: mr. president i now ask unanimous consent that kevin reed, a fellow in senator mark udall's office, be granted floor privileges during the senate session for the week of november 26-30, 2012. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i now ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow tuesday november 27. follow be the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning

hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day that the majority leader be recognize and a the first hour be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees that the republicans control the first half and the majority controlling the final half and that the senate recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. the presiding officer: is without objection. mr. levin: we hope to consider the disabilities treaty during tomorrow's session. if there is a he no further business to come before the nah senate, i ask that the adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourninged until 10:00 am tomorrow morning. adjourn:

mr. president, in theeeks >> a week since the country votedre to return the president majori i obama to the white house democratic majority in the a senate, i've spoken often about i compromise. optimisc tha i remain optimistic that when it comes to our economy when it comes to protecting middle-class families, the whopping tax hike able on january 1 republicans and democrats will be able to find common ground. president dwight eisenhower a i republican once said and ipeople tk a quote, people talk about the i middle of the road as though it were unacceptable. there have to be compromises. the middle of the road is all the usable space.

so said dwight eisenhower. and too often republican and democrats in washington face off entre fromnc internship positions neverou realizing solutions to the on one country's problems rest not on othe but s one side of the aisle or the other, but somewhere in thegotiate middle. we continue to negotiate a with the responsible path forward i remind everyone within the sound of my voice one fact this from congress is already one vote away from avoiding the fiscal cliff for middle-class families and small businesses. onom ic we could solve the greatest the economic emergency facing the nation today if only the house rates would consider the senate passed bill raising tax rates 4908% of businses. american families and 97% of small businesses. as thomas jefferson said this quote is a quote we should not pute c an off tomorrow what we can do our today.on our legislation would deal with economic certain to the middle class can protect important taxsses and restore deductions for families and the businesses and restore balance pay

by asking the most fortunate among us to pay a little extra to reduce this debt. a it's also the only by with a law chance of being signed into lawas by president obama who speaker boehner once again urged to pickxtending more up the house passed bill askonaires and anymore tax breaks for the millionaires and billionaires. c the senate has already considered that bill.n we rejected it on a bipartisanpeaker basis. u w so for the speaker to say bring in it up we already have. the it was voted down in this spoke congress. obama the senate has spoken. president obama has spoken. spo he has promised he would not sign any bill that mortgages are futu to p future to pay for handouts to the wealthiest 2% of americans.i only h i only hope house republicanstening. have been listening. i also hope my colleagues, the hou and republican and democrats senateused the members of the house and senate also use the thanksgiving break to not only give thanks but also too reflect on the monumental task ahead. i hope it is time to reflect on the effort it will take to t complete the task.

e wil as president eisenhower said co they will have to be mi compromises. and seeking the medal of the road isn't just acceptable. it's the only way forward. by spent as most americans know byw weeks now, the next few weeks areportant life critically important in the life of our nation. of our unless the president leads in leads a congress acts a combination of automatic tax cuts and spending cuts were going to affect thatt would could have a devastating effect on her national defense and on our already painfully slow e economy. what's more, the nation's finances are teetering on the edgend edge and threatening eveniteral greater hardship for literallyri millions and less we bring federal spending into balance. q the question is what are we going to do about all of this? how do we face up to fiscal irresponsibility and can taking that god is here and finally that's what's right for the don'think

country? a i don't think it's a secret thathown for our part republicans are shown a clear willingness to make tough choices in order to find a solution to the trillion t dollar deficits of the last four we years. we've r been open by closing loopholes as long as tighter that spending cuts and pro-growth tax reform that broadens the base and lowers rates. this is the model laid out by pties the bowles-simpson commission, and it's a model both parties should step forward. and embrace. without compromising our prin principles we put skin in theognition game and recognition of the facton't that while democrats don't run this town, neither doow we. been rponsible we've been responsible, even as firm we remained firm on this point. n no tax increases now for promise won' spending cuts that won't materialize later.eople hav e the american people have seen that game before, and they will be fooled again.one t the only balanced approach is one that includes real and

lasting reforms. ve some republicans have stepped out of our comfort zone.hat we've been clear about what we will do and what we won't. and yet we remain at an impasse. to leaving us to ask why. a because a vocal minority on theeft conti hard left continues to argue two p leaders of their party from the president on down that democrats in washington should do absolutely nothing about short-term or long-term spending long- problems.te prob this is the film and louise crd, crowd of the ones you dream about higher taxes taxes and bigger government, pay for the or regardless of impact on jobs for the economy for america's standing in the world. thenes these are the ones oft practically ignore the fact that running we can't keep running trillion a dollar deficits every year and throw a tantrum if some who suggest that maybe the taxpayers shouldn't keep subsidizing everywashingt

last program washington ever dreamed up. thei they are reckless and appr ideological approach threatens future a our very future.out s t and anyone who is serious aboutd ignor all solving the problems we face should ignore all of that, starting with the president. over, b the election is over but the economy and fiscal problems of the past several years have only gotten worse. above it's time for the president to and present a plan that rises above the reckless and radical voices on the hard left that goes talkingoints beyond the talking points of thet campaign trail and has a realist realistic chance of passing the congress. that time in other words, for campaigning is over.sident time for the president to lead. a little over a week ago i presiden attended a meeting with the positive president at the white house. aerward it was positive and productive.e and afterward i was confident that all sides would be eager to a figure out a solution to the present challenges that respectsples, our respective crystals.peatedly the

o as i've said repeatedly the onlyr person who can make or break ithe's the only one is the president himself. he's the only one who can lead his party to do something they wouldn't ordinarily do. to do what's actually needed now. and that's what he's the one who has to present a plan for to success.the so we'll continue to wait on thering president and hope he has what it takes to bring people together and forge a compromise. if he does we will get there. he and if he doesn't, we won't. it's that simple. spent you listen to mayor bloomberg said the damage was unprecedented, that it may be the worst storm that the city has ever faced and the tidal surge, previous high was 10 feet. for this storm it was 14. governor christie said the damage in new jersey was unthinkable. i mean we have fires. we had hurricane force winds. we had you know, massive flooding. we had speed of snow to get a to

get a look at that and and lucas but into the subway system and the shutdown of the stock exchanges, you start getting sense of the massive scale and scope of this storm. and yet the networks perform. i mean i've read dozens of stories over the last couple of weeks about how for many consumers their only link to information, their only tie to any sort of information or to people is through their smartphone linking social media and their smartphone. so while there was an impact on cell sites i think the networks perform really, really pretty well spent my assessment here is some networks did well some networks did less well but we don't really have solid information about this because there are no reporting requirements of these networks. there are no standards by which we measure their performance and it's entirely voluntary whether they want to talk to the sec or not or talk to your state and local governments or not. so why take their word for it that they responded well. i also have anecdotally heard

that some of these guys may be decided as well. and i think it first appears we have to find out who did well who didn't do well, and how we make sure that everybody is doing well. >> the impact of superstorm sandy on telecommunication systems tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> been at 8:40 p.m. eastern tonight a conversation with chief justice john roberts. he spoke to the president of rice university in houston about life on the supreme court. >> senior contributor at the daily. things are being here. >> good morning. it is a page in "the wall street journal" today with the headline, acted as are urging a new republican. we see an image of governor bobby jindal of louisiana governor bob mcdonnell of virginia. they're saying that you key -- what you see the message being? >> i think that's part of the. it's interesting the republican party need to do two things simultaneously that seem to be

almost opposite. want to thank us to be more cosmic whole thing. if elected republicans who really have done well in the pentagon its people like ronald reagan. of course, a movie actor who could go and talk to the elites in new york and washington, d.c. but also has this pipe is to give. the reagan democrats both in pennsylvania and ohio blue-collar workers. he could resonate with them. and it's not fair to say this to mitt romney, but he could not come he did not have the populist appeal. just by virtue of who he was who he is, his biography and his very demeanor. mitt romney, his brand was always going to be rich republican working gecko guy, and, of course, it ended up that way. >> host: matt lewis, the next morning, the morning after the election, quite early on you when the people who came out calling for changes in the republican party. you have a piece you call the republicans or the gop needs modernization, not moderation.

even just the morning after we were still assessing what happened, how mitt romney lost the presidency. how republicans were not able to gain more ground in the senate. what were your initial reflections and what are you looking for? >> guest: first of all thank you for bringing that appear to modernization, not matter ration line ended up becoming almost a catch phrase for what republicans are going through right now. bobby jindal, and others have kids -- used similar language in several that the morning after the election. the reason i did was i think there are two mistakes that could be made, both would be equally damaging. one mistake is to say hey mitt romney was a bad candidate, we don't need to take this seriously. as the republican party we just ignore it, it will go away. i think that would be tragic and a vast misreading of what needs to happen if republicans going to once again be a majority party. but the other mistake would be to read into this well, we just need to become more moderate.

and i think that would be equally tragic. i think what needs to happen is soul-searching and sort of rethinking we packaging what is conservatism, what is republicanism for the 21st century. and in some cases that might mean actually doubling down on some of those core values and first crystals that republicans believe in, not giving them up but actually being clearly defined what we believe in, whether it's for example, the pro-life movement. i would say being a pro-life party is very important for the republicans. it would be suicide to get that at. how they talk about her how they can communicate that in the 21st century anymore compassion and empathetic way i think is key to modernization. >> host: matt lewis you canou would in -- joined the conversation. here's the numbers. republicans, (202)585-3886, and independence (202)585-3887.

ralph has an opinion piece in "the wall street journal" this point. is of course the chairman of the faith and freedom coalition andington he says republicans has now lost four of the six presidential- elections. since the berlin wall came down. mor soul-searching is named. any post-electoral narrative that suggest otherwise republicans need not abandon their principal. they must resist the temptation to form a circular firing squad. guest: >> guest: i think would be a mistake for the republican party to give up the things, the court up the please, the core values they believe in. by the sams e token, the world has tok changed. look, the republican party lost 71% of hispanics. that is unacceptable.

something is wrong. there's no way that has to obv happen. it simply cannot be allowed to if you continue if you want republicans to be in the majority again. i think the republican party against simultaneously has to do a better job of appealing working- class americans but also appealing student cosmopolitan = = also appealing to cosmopolitan conservatives. the guy lives in arlington virginia, and built himself up, should not be an automatic barack obama vote. i don't think republicans should just say candidates of all the problems. if you look at the people poised to be the future leaders, marco rubio, bobby jindal they have this ability. if i were not in the logical, if

i did not have core beliefs, i probably would've been a barack obama voter. he resonates more with me as a person than mitt romney did. maybe it is a generational and. maybe it is i live in northern virginia and my dad was a corrections officer and knocked george romney. obama appealed more to me stylistically. someone like marco rubio or bobby jindal will appeal to more urban americans, folks living in the city's, whobut also have the ability to tap into working- class americans. marco rubio talks about the american dream. everybody thinks he's got to be a great candidate because he is hispanic. that part of it may be. but it is the way he talks about the market and free enterprise talking about creating an america where your father can be a bartender in miami and his son can be a u.s.

senator. that's what the american dream is. host: matt 's past experience includes being the director of the leadership institute, a nonprofit training organization. in march of 2007 he was one of two bloggers invited on john mccain's poor bus on a visit to new hampshire with an interview with the candidate and was named a rising star politics by politics magazine a decade ago. -- john mccain's tour bus. guest: a decade already spiriy. host: let's go to our democratic allies in virginia. caller: i do consider myself a democrat. i was willing to consider going some of the direction with

obama. i have not been satisfied with his first term necessarily. the republicans unfortunately across almost racist on many occasions. i am engaged to a woman who is from guatemala. she is very smart and very conservative in her personal and social values. just the way the republicans spoke about immigration and things like that, they came across as really racist. so that turned her away and it turned me away. the entire abortion and thing, i think we all know that abortion is not something we want. i don't feel it helps our society in any way. but the way todd akin and richard murdock spoke about it shows their insensitivity to women's issues.

a lot of women are tired of white men telling them what they can and cannot do when men cannot have babies. the republican party has a lot of work to do to repair their image. guest: i agree completely. talking about the immigration issue, if you look at the republican primary, a couple incidents happened. herman cain is an african- american republican, but he talked about building a moat to keep immigrants out. candidates like newt gingrich and rick perry bravely stood up for a more compassionate position for immigrants. they got destroyed by mitt romney who outflanked them in talking about deportations -- self-deportation.

i think it is more complex than people think. you are right. the image of the republican party, it's not just they are against illegal immigration. the images that they don't like -- the image is that they don't like hispanic immigrants. that is horrible and must be fixed. not just because a lot hispanics tend to be family oriented. but get entrepreneurs some -- look get on to benares soming at on japan oof entrepreneurism. i think that we need americans like that in this country.

we have to abide by the rule of law and we have to secure the borders. i would be in favor of more immigration. marco rubio supports his version of the dream act. people that want to join the military or go to college to stay in this country illegally. that sounds like common sense to me. i got criticized for this a little bit earlier. part of the brand needs to be compassionate conservatism. i do not mean a return to george bush. that is associated with wars and spending. i'm talking about framing conservative ideas 3 compassionate lens -- through a

compassionate lens. i think if you're compassionate you look at that in a different way. the same thing speaks to the life issue. the republican party should respect the life of the unborn. how do you talk about the life issue? not about the way todd akin and mourdock did. we just heard one quotation from them. we have to come up with a better name than compassionate conservatism. part of the new brand will be addressing these issues in a more compassionate manner. host: we have a tweet from joe.

senators are moderating their attacks on susan rice over handling of an attack in libya. host: our last caller brought up concerns over the way republicans are reaching out or not reaching out to women. is this a potential land mine, a tough issue for republicans to work through? she is an african american and a woman. guest: the contrast is older white men like john mccain that are attacking her.

i think barack obama will probably nominate her to set a trap. i think republicans are right on the substance. she said things that even i know are not true. she is privy to more information than me. she said it was about the video and the attacks were spontaneous. clearly, she had to know she was misleading. she either misled the american people or she is incredibly naive. i think republicans are right substantively. i think it is politically toxic for republicans to oppose her. host: louanne on our republicans

line. caller: i hear the same rhetoric about the republicans. they are upset about the illegals. what difference does it make where they come from? i have a neighbor that is german. she is upset that she had to come to america of the right way. she gets nothing free from the american government. we just open our doors and say come on in. please tell me how much abortion costs? how many abortions do we owe these women? do you ever talk about vasectomies? they get off scott-free.

you are telling me to change my attitude. the word "illegal" has never changed. it is a lot of different nations. did not say i am anti-black or anti-hispanic. republicans cannot win with a liberal news media. this is equivalent to check ocelot lea liberal news media -- this is equivalent to check of slovakia -- czechoslovakia with liberal news media. guest: how billy adapt and

overcome -- how do we adapt and overcome? part of it is excepting the reality. it is unfair the republican party has been attacked with this racist moniker. it is a reality. i think it is what it is. i believe the u.s. should secure its border and i believe in the rule of law. you shouldn't be allowed to stream into this country. that is incredibly dangerous. you do not want bad actors coming in who could come over the border with everybody else.

we have to take care of the borders. now what do you do? mass deportation? amnesty? there has to be a way that republicans and democrats can work together to address this problem. it will be nice if republicans did not alienate this growing block of voters. it is shameful and suicide politically. host: cary maryland. -- cary from maryland. caller: i have issues with both parties having problems sharing the pain. to not raise taxes. -- do not

raise taxes. i think both need to be done in a conservative way. both sides always draw a line in the sand. we voted people in and pay their salaries to run the government. do what is best for the country and i do not see enough of that. guest: i think that president obama is to blame for a lot of this. he came in with a lot of political capital. incredibly popular. he has a chance to transcend partisan politics, which would hurt republicans. he could become a leader that is a third wave politician.

instead he became a traditional democrat. he was able to push truth health care. he could have become someone who through flattery and bringing in republicans or political power, he could have exercised leadership. because he didn't, we have trench warfare that has persisted more than four years. he could've solved it. will there be a compromise? senator carporker talks about capping deductions and having some means testing. that sounds to me like the kind of a compromise that might have

potential to work. we will see how dug in both sides are. there is a chance republicans were sent a message on election day. we will wait and see. host: here's the piece from senator corker in "the washington post.' " what are the chances of congress acting before they go home for the holidays? do you see some room to negotiate? some republicans are looking to back away from the grover norquist tax pledge if they can see tax reform on the table. guest: there is a problem --

it's going to be in the house. can john boehner get enough republican house members to support something like this? i think that is an open question. if nothing happens, the sequestration takes over. what makes this a good possibility that something will get done. the republicans' most concerned about this are folks like lindsey graham who are very worried about the defense cuts. will the republicans' desire for a strong national defense overcome their concerns for raising taxes? i do not think republicans will raise tax rates. i do not think it will raise

capital gains. will democrats go along with that? state-owny tuned. host: are there other republicans you're waiting to see come out and send signals? guest: i did nothing so with king. he is been a modern big city republican. nothing wrong with that. the republicans that are signaling that might be amenable to a deal are the usual suspects so far. will somebody rise that will surprise you? that will be the question. i do not know the answer to that. it is incredibly difficult.

there is an incentive to not compromise. "compromise" has become a dirty word. host: susan in manassas virginia. go ahead. caller: hi. right when you for started talking i thought this gentleman gets it. the more you talk, i felt you do not get it. it is about policy. what they stated is in the platform of the republican party. they weren't saying anything that is strange or unique. that is what the republican party believes in. they were strong enough to say

it. the problem with john mccain going after susan rice -- he can disagree with her or that she shouldn't be secretary of state. he went into an aggressive attack. that makes women feel uncomfortable. "here they go again." "they are attacking her." it makes people feel uncomfortable. now he is turning down the rhetoric. "you have to tone it down." host: there is an opinion piece in "usa today."

guest: i think both of those things are probably true. i think susan rice disqualified herself by misleading the american public. i also think there is hypocrisy . democrats have viciously attacked republican women including condoleezza rice. there is a perception that republicans are racist, sexist, chauvinist. i think john mccain needs to do a better job. it is fine to oppose her nomination. host: someone writes about sarah palin for president in 2016.

guest: well, look, sarah palin is a prime example of a woman that was demonized by a lot of people on the left,. some said bad things about her son which i think is a horrible. sarah palin can tap into that populist appeal. but i think that her window has passed. my late friend always thought should be perhaps more powerful and influential become in the conservative oprah rather than enter into politics. i think she could have a major

voice in helping move the party and the discussion. host: jerry from huntington beach, good morning. caller: good morning to you. you mentioned the problem is we branding of the republican message -- is rebrandingh of the republican message. why not nominate on this candidates? i like the honesty of ron paul. i wouldn't walk across the street to vote for mitt romney. guest: well, ron paul has set a couple of chances to become the

nominee and couldn't get it done. his son has a good chance to run for the republican nomination in 2016 and i think he could make a big splash. i think rand paul has a lot of what people like about ron paul but is much more appealing to republicans. there could be a huge backlash within the republican party. you would have these tea party conservatives, marco rubio and rand paul. there are in the u.s. senate and our young and conservative who differed dramatically on foreign policy. marco rubio is more of a kennedy-esque beacon on hope.

there could be an interesting debate in the republican primary next time if rand paul and marco rubio run over the future of the republican party. host: arlington tx, good morning. caller: i wanted to make a comment. republicans have a problem with minorities and hispanics. i am a hispanic man and i don't think about immigration every day wake-up up. immigration is not a permanent topic for me in everyday life. it makes me think that maybe there's something more to it.

on the various social issues, i think the republican party pushes me away. gay-rights, environmental rights. would you change your views on gay-right rights or dealing with the environmental? host: we have a headline. try to find a role in the republican party. guest: the caller talked about immigration. i think that is a threshold issue. there are a lot of hispanics and that is not their top issue. i think everybody -- they want

to believe that you like them. if people believe you hate them, it doesn't matter if your policies to help them. it is a deal breaker. in thinsame thing with gays. if they think republicans hate them that is a deal breaker. republicans have to get rid of the image and then we can talk about the issues. marco rubio can talk about the american dream. you want to be able to work hard and live the american dream. that is appealing once they believe republicans do not hate them. there will be a big debate.

it is a matter of compassionate conservatism. you can be a conservatism that wants to protect traditional marriage. but do not be mean about it. you can have gay friends and love them. it is a matter of town. if republicans were compassionate -- some are bitter. if that is the tone you can write off these huge blocks of voters. caller: good morning. i agree with your one caller from oregon who called about the immigration problem. i am and american of african descent.

i feel the republicans and democrats have avoided enforcing our border for so many years that they have created a problem. i feel the republicans and democrats are afraid to go after those employers that do employed illegal immigrants within our country. if they would have done that, they would have been discouraged from coming here. they will be uppaid less than americans and that contributes to unemployment. the criticism of susan rice. it is disingenuous to me after condoleezza rice and general colin powell went before a

security council's and gave information that iraq had wmd'd. s. they had nothing and still confirmed condoleezza rice as the secretary of state. i feel their attack on susan rice and saying she misled the public, she gave them the talking points that she was given by the intelligence community. guest: ok. it is hypocritical for republicans to oppose susan rice it is typical for democrats to defend condoleezza rice. this is ridiculous the whole thing. if she was the white house secretary, i would say fine.

robert gibbs is not the principal. his job is to give the white house's spend. that is fine. it is jay carney now. they give somebody else's message. susan rice is an ambassador and might be the secretary of state. her job is not to parrot talking points. it didn't pass the smell test when she went on the talking shows. her job was to push back and say, "if you give me the information, it has to be true." if democrats think that, the ric